1 Sep 2014



Published on 31 Aug 2014
In this healthy living video we look at what may be hiding in your toothpaste that could cause cancer. Part of my health program has to do with developing conscious awareness of the chemicals we allow in our body, Trying our best to eliminate fluoride, aspartame, etc. Our bodies do not function as well when it is highly toxified. Make sure to keep things as natural as possible staying away from dangerous chemicals and drugs. God Bless and I pray you all be in good health :D

Chemical used by Colgate Total toothpaste to fight off gum disease is linked to cancer - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...

How to Make Natural Toothpaste - http://wellnessmama.com/1772/natural-...

Homemade Remineralizing Toothpaste Recipe - http://wellnessmama.com/2500/reminera...

Come and like us on Facebook @ www.facebook.com/thevigilantchristianmar­io

31 Aug 2014



Published on 30 Aug 2014
Fluoride should NEVER be ADDED to our tap water...FLUORIDATION CHEMICAL ARE TOXIC EVEN AT LOW DOSAGES...They are the waste products from the fertiliser industry and are classified as hazardous waste... It is the ONLY DRUG THAT IS FORCED AS MASS MEDICATION ON THE POPULATION WITH NO CONTROL OF DOSE!...


In the University of Wisconsin they did experiments on pigs and they overdosed them with fluoride...they used the synthetic one, same one that is being used and being added to the tap water in Ireland which is more dangerous than the regular calcium fluoride...the pigs which normally withstand toxic affects got to a point where very quickly they couldn't withstand the toxic affects...and didnt take very long to absorb into the pigs and kill them in a very short short period of time!...but nobody who was promoting fluoride mentioned that bulletin...and that was in 1953! The physiological factors against the body still remain the same...

Fluoride is used in rat poison to kill rats...when they drink it...it blows their intestines apart...There is NO GOOD HISTORY WITH FLUORIDATION...NONE!

30 Aug 2014



I Want Fluoride Banned Ciara Sherlock HD

29 Aug 2014

No Naturally Occurring Fluoride Is Added To Drinking Water – See What’s Really Added



hazmat
The resistance against water fluoridation might be a different story if the naturally occurring element of fluoride was added to our water. Fluoride is found in all natural waters, levels can be very high in groundwater, depending on a number of factors, such as the types of rocks and minerals of that region. Drinking water is the largest fluoride source.
Our tap water, on the other hand, is littered with hydrofluorosilicic Acid, a toxic industrial waste by-product that governments have been adding to our drinking water for over sixty years. Again, we’re not talking about the natural element of fluoride here, we are talking about industrial toxic waste.

Fluorosilicic acid regulation standard for use in water fluoridation is 98% purity. That's allows 2% arsenic and mercury from the  hundreds of tonnes going into drinking water.

28 Aug 2014

USA - Pediatricians Want Parents to Use THIS Deadly Chemical on Infants

The American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) suggested that fluoride-ridden toothpaste should be used on infants as soon as teeth begin to appear; as well as using “a smear (the size of a grain of rice) of toothpaste” with fluoride on children up to 3 years old.
The report concludes that “Fluoride has both risks and benefits for children, and pediatricians must be aware of these to promote their patients’ oral health.”
Orig.src.Susanne.Posel.Daily.News- fluoride.pediatricians.babies.infants.toddlers.neurotoxin_occupycorporatismSeveral months ago, the American Dental Association (ADA) is recommending that children use toothpaste with fluoride as soon as their first tooth appears to “help prevent cavities”.
This statement claims to combat fluorosis and discoloration of teeth by increasing the use of fluoride.
The ADA said that parents should smear the fluoride-laced toothpaste directly onto the gums of their children ages 3 and older as one suggestion in a new set of guidelines that are designed to ensure more children are exposed to fluoride at a younger age.
Earlier this year, researchers from Harvard University (HU) the Mount Sinai Hospital (MSH) confirmedprevious disclosures that state fluoride is a neurotoxin.
Philip Landrigan, dean for global health and chair of preventative medicine for Icahn School of Medicine (ISM) at MSH, and his colleague Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) concur that fluoride, among other neurotoxins are causational to the onset of neurodevelopmental disabilities (NDDs).
The researchers identify a few NDDs as:
• Autism
• Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
• Dyslexia
Nearly a decade ago, Lita Lee, chemist and enzyme therapist published a paper entitled, “Fluoride: A Modern Toxic Waste” which chastised the use of sodium fluoride in the public water supply, food and beverages for the average American to consume.
Lee wrote: “Yiamouyiannis documents research showing that fluoride increases the tumor growth rate by 25% at only 1 ppm, produces melanotic tumors, transforms normal cells into cancer cells and increases the carcinogenesis of other chemicals. For the original references to these studies, refer to Yiamouyiannis’ pamphlet, Lifesavers Guide to Fluoridation.”

27 Aug 2014

Fluoridealert








AUGUST 27, 2014

This is the first of a two-part series on the whitewash reviews which are produced by pro-fluoridation governments in an attempt to defuse the growing efforts to end this foolish practice worldwide. Part 1 is on the whitewash review produced by the NZ government a few days ago.
Hand picked governmental review panels
In the book The Case Against Fluoride (Chelsea Green, 2010) my co-authors and I tried to explain how and why the practice of water fluoridation has been pursued so vigorously for so many years, despite the science that indicates that it is neither effective nor safe. The “how’s” are much easier to explain (see chapters 22-25) than the “why’s” (see chapter 26). One of the how’s is the self-serving governmental reviews which we describe in chapter 24. We lead of that chapter with a quote from the book Fluoride Wars (2009), which is otherwise slanted toward fluoridation. The authors, Alan Freeze and Jay Lehr, conceded one very important point about the promotion of fluoridation. They write:
The Anti-fluoride forces have always claimed that the many government-sponsored review panels set up over the years to assess the costs and benefits of fluoridation were stacked in favor of fluoridation. A review of the membership of the various panels confirms this charge. The expert committees that put together reports by the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1941, 1944 and 1954; the National Academy of Sciences in 1951, 1971, 1977 and 1993; the World Health Organization in 1958 and 1970; and the U.S. Public Health Service in 1991 are rife with the names of well-known medical and dental researchers who actively campaigned on behalf of fluoridation or whose research was held in high regard in the pro-fluoridation movement. Membership was interlocking and incestuous.
Nothing has changed. Time and time again when this practice is under political or scientific threat pro-fluoridation governments hand pick panels (usually containing a mix of government employees and scientists who are known to be pro-fluoridation) to “review” the literature and thence deliver a rubber-stamp for government policy. In chapter 24 we discuss three recent examples of this 1) The Irish Fluoridation Forum (2002); 2) Health Canada’s selection of 6 experts to review the literature in 2007 (four of which were pro-fluoridation dentists) and 3) the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council of 2007 (NHMRC, 2007).
As Mark Twain observed “history may not repeat itself but it sure does rhyme!”
The latest NZ Whitewash review
This review titled the Health Effects of Water Fluoridation: a Review of the Scientific Evidence, commissioned by the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor Sir Peter Gluckman and the Royal Society of New Zealand’s president Sir David Skegg, was released on August 22, 2014.
A press report can be viewed here: http://fluoridealert.org/news/fluoride-safe-and-effective-expert-review/
As far as the science is concerned this is a classic case of inaccurate, selective, slanted and superficial use of the literature and later I will give one very clear example to illustrate that. But first here is what Mary Byrne, who heads up FAN NZ, says about the politics of this review. In an August press release, Mary wrote:
Last week we had Dirty Politics this week we have Laundromat Science

A “review” of fluoridation published yesterday (22nd August) was chaired by committed fluoridationists Professors Peter Gluckman and David Skegg. Both of these men had already hung their hat on the fluoridation wagon.

It is obvious that this review was set up to allay the growing public concern and awareness that fluoride does cause harm rather than actually deal with science. This was PR not science, in other words, dirty science.

Last year Prof Gluckman issued an advisory stating that “the science was settled” and two weeks ago he said on Radio NZ that the Review would be looking at “what we know about the safety and efficacy of fluoride in water.” He didn’t say they would be examining the research that shows that fluoride is harmful and perhaps not even effective.

Less than two years ago, Prof Skegg claimed that there was no new evidence to require a review of fluoridation, in spite of the two most prestigious international reviews in history (The York Review 2000 and the National Research Council 2006) saying there was a dire need for better scientific information.

The NZ “expert panel” included only people who were already known to be ardently in favor of fluoridation and not one single person who is known to be opposed, or even someone neutral. It was therefore already a foregone conclusion.

Gregory Seymour who, as Head of the Otago Dental School, refused the Dental Students’ Association’s request to hear scientific evidence against fluoridation on campus by an international expert, and Murray Thomson is the Editor of the NZ Dental Journal and author of pro-fluoridation papers…

This review should be viewed against the recent background of the Health Minister of Israel banning fluoridation last week and the admission by Dr. Michael Beasley, the Deputy Director of the National Poisons Centre, that the jury is still out regarding fluoride’s safety...

The reality is that this “kangaroo review” is just a “finger in the dyke,” trying to hold back the inevitable demise of this failed policy. The weight of scientific evidence is that fluoridation is not only ineffective; it poses major health risks, as (has been) known since the 1940s.
Fluoride Free New Zealand calls for an independently chaired open public discussion to uncover the truth about fluoridation.

Political science not physical science

The following passage from the NZ review will serve to illustrate the shoddy scientific analysis they provide. In a section titled “Effects on IQ” they write:
Recently there have been a number of reports from China and other areas where fluoride levels in groundwater are naturally very high, that have claimed an association between high water fluoride levels and minimally reduced intelligence (measured as IQ) in children.
In addition to the fact that the fluoride exposures in these studies were many (up to 20) times higher than any that are experienced in New Zealand or other CWF communities, the studies also mostly failed to consider other factors that might influence IQ, including exposures to arsenic, iodine deficiency, socioeconomic status, or the nutritional status of the children. Further, the claimed shift of less than one IQ point suggests that this is likely to be a measurement or statistical artifact of no functional significance. A recently published study in New Zealand followed a group of people born in the early 1970s and measured childhood IQ at the ages of 7, 9, 11 and 13 years, and adult IQ at the age of 38 years. Early-life exposure to fluoride from a variety of sources was recorded, and adjustments were made for factors potentially influencing IQ. This extensive study revealed no evidence that exposure to water fluoridation in New Zealand affects neurological development or IQ.
We conclude that on the available evidence there is no appreciable effect on cognition arising from CWF.
It should be incredibly embarrassing for the Royal Society of New Zealand to have its name associated with such an inaccurate and biased summary of the literature on fluoride’s impact on children’s intellectual development.

1) Gluckman and Skegg claim “a shift of less than one IQ point” in the 27 studies reviewed by Choi et al (2012). In reality, the average lowering of IQ was 6.9 IQ points and that is NOT "of no functional significance.” Gluckman and Skegg’s mistake here is huge. A downward shift of 5 IQ points (or more) in a large population would more than double the number of persons who are mentally handicapped (with IQs less than 70) and more than halve the number of very bright persons or geniuses (persons with IQs over 130).

2) Gluckman and Skegg claim that, “fluoride exposures in these studies were many (up to 20) times higher than any that are experienced in New Zealand or other CWF communities.” There are several problems with this statement.

A) By using the word “exposures” they are blurring the distinction between concentration and dose. Two populations drinking water with different fluoride concentrations can overlap in the doses received by individuals. For example, high water drinkers of water at 1 ppm could get a higher dose than low-water drinkers at 4 ppm.

B) The use of the phrase “up to 20 times” higher is deceptive since only two out of the 27 studies had the “high-fluoride” village concentrations going up to 11.5 ppm.

Moreover, when harm is found toxicologists and regulators do not normally focus on the highest level but the lowest level where harm occurs. They try to identify a Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) and even a No Observable Adverse Effect level (NOAEL). Thus more relevant to NZ (and other countries with water fluoridation programs in the range of 0.6 to 1.2 ppm) is the fact that 8 of the reviewed studies had concentrations in the “high-fluoride” village (where IQ was lowered) of less than 3 ppm. Thus a significant number of these studies indicate that there is no adequate margin of safety to protect all children drinking fluoridated water in NZ or other fluoridated countries.

I should add that in one study the authors sub-divided the children in the high-fluoride village into 5 groups with increasing fluoride concentrations in their well water from 0.75 to 4.3 ppm. They found that as the fluoride concentration increased a) their mean IQ of the sub-group was lowered and b) the percentage of children with an IQ less than 80 increased. The lowest level at which an IQ lowering occurred was 1.26 ppm (Xiang, et al., 2003).

C) This lack of an adequate margin of safety gets worse when one notes that Gluckman and Skegg are also ignoring other sources of fluoride, which could make it worse for NZ children. For example, rural Chinese children are less likely to use fluoridated toothpaste and a higher percentage would be breast-fed not bottle-fed. In these two respects NZ children would be getting more fluoride from these sources than the Chinese children.

3) Gluckman and Skegg claim that of the 27 studies most “failed to consider other factors that might influence IQ, including exposures to arsenic, iodine deficiency, socioeconomic status, or the nutritional status of the children.”

However, the fact that many of the studies did not control for all of these factors does not obviate the need to look for the studies that did. For example, Xiang et al. (2003 a,b) controlled for lead, iodine and more recently arsenic and his work needs to be studied very carefully not simply dismissed because of other weaker studies.

Gluckman and Skegg are also demonstrating a double standard here because the study they offer as evidence of no lowering of IQ (Broadbent et al, 2014) also failed to control for some for these same key variables. In fact, the Broadbent study is a very weak study since they have virtually no children in the control group i.e. they had virtually no children that were neither exposed to fluoridated water nor fluoride supplements.

4) Gluckman and Skegg do a very poor job of reviewing all the other voluminous evidence that fluoride is a potent neurotoxin. So while perhaps none of these individual IQ studies is conclusive, the overall consistency of the results is remarkable considering they were done by different research teams in different countries, and over a very wide geographical area in China. The results are also consistent with many other animal and human studies. For example, there have been 19 animal studies that have shown that animals perform less well in learning and memory experiments when exposed to fluoride. It is the weight of evidence on fluoride’s neurotoxicity that should make responsible scientists and health officials much more cautious than Gluckman and Skegg.

While at this point we can do little to change the whitewash dished up by Gluckman and Skegg other than exposing their political agenda and their lack of science, we might be able to do something more about the new review by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), an agency of the Australian Federal government.
So please help prevent the NHMRC dishing up another whitewash review on fluoridation by sending in the online message below. The Australian public was duped in 2007: But once bitten twice shy. Please help Australian citizens and activists prevent this from happening again. Please personalize this online message with an opening sentence about yourself and then forward to the Australian Federal Health Minister (Rt. Hon. Peter Dutton) and the CEO of the NHMRC Professor Warwick Anderson, with copies to the Prime Minister and others.
Your own sentence here) I wish to register my concern about the NHMRC’s selection of professionals chosen for its current fluoridation review. When examining the selection, the perception of “conflict of interest” and “potential bias” is difficult to shake. Not one single expert offered to the NHMRC by citizens to help in the review process has been accepted. This is in sharp contrast to the US National Research Council that appointed a more balanced panel to review the toxicology of fluoride in water. Incredibly, the 500-page landmark review produced by this panel in 2006 was ignored by the NHMRC in 2007 and is being excluded from consideration in 2014. To make matters worse the process for submitting public input has been rushed (from July 23 to 10am August 22), overly restrictive, and unnecessarily complicated (see https://consultations.nhmrc.gov.au/user/register ).
It would appear that the current review will be a repeat of the NHMRC’s review of 2007, where the clear intent was to protect the government’s fluoridation policy rather than the health of its citizens. We urge you to ensure that the NHMRC serves Australia in the best traditions of service and science and not as a rubber-stamp for government policy.
Please personalize the online message below and ask others to do the same.
CLICK HERE TO SEND ONLINE MESSAGE

Paul Connett, PhD,
Director, Fluoride Action Network


Iodine Facts

26 Aug 2014

The Spice That Prevents Fluoride From Destroying Your Brain


Fluoride is found everywhere today, from antibiotics to drinking water, no stick pans to toothpaste, making exposure inevitable. All the more reason why new research proving this common spice can prevent fluoride damage is so promising!
http://themindunleashed.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/spiceeee.jpgFluoride’s neurotoxicity has been the subject of academic debate for decades, and now a matter of increasingly impassioned controversy among the general public, as well. From ‘conspiracy theories’ about it being first used in drinking water in Russian and Nazi concentration camps to chemically lobotomize captives, to its now well-known IQ lowering properties, to its ability to enhance the calcification of the pineal gland – the traditional ‘seat of the soul’ – many around the world, and increasingly in the heavily fluoridated regions of the United States, are starting to organize at the local and statewide level to oust this ubiquitous toxicant from municipal drinking water.
Now, a new study published in the Pharmacognosy Magazine titled, “Curcumin attenuates neurotoxicity induced by fluoride: An in vivo evidence,” adds experimental support to the suspicion that fluoride is indeed a brain-damaging substance, also revealing that a natural spice-derived protective agent against the various health effects associated with this compound is available....................

World’s Worst Weed Was Prehistoric Cavity Fighter

World’s Worst Weed Was Prehistoric Cavity FighterWho knew that chewing what today’s farmers call the “world’s worst weed” could prevent cavities? Seems our early ancestors, who lived during the pre-Mesolithic, Neolithic and Meroitic periods, had a clue. Granted, they didn’t have Coke or Pepsi to fill their mouths with refined sugars. Still, the nagging question remains, what’s in the world’s most prolific weed that saved our ancestors from rotting molars?
Brush Daily and Chew Some Cyperus Rotundus
Stephen Buckley, an archaeological chemist from the University of York in England, believes he’s found the answer. He and his team recently analyzed the hardened plaque in the fossilized teeth of our prehistoric ancestors and concluded that the chemical compounds in purple nutsedge (cyperus rotundus) may have protected them against tooth decay. The highly technical report Buckley and his colleagues published in PLOS One offers a detailed scientific explanation. But here’s the layman’s take: The research, conducted at Al Khiday, a pre-historic site on the White Nile in Central Sudan, revealed that before man developed agriculture and after agricultural plants were harvested, Al Khiday tribesmen ate purple nut sedge to inhibit Streptococcus mutans, a bacterium that contributes to tooth decay. In fact, less than one percent of people who lived in Sudan thousands of years ago had cavities, abscesses, or other signs of tooth decay, in spite of their high grain content diet, which created a hospitable environment for bacteria.
The World’s Worst Weed May be Good for You
While our ancestors enjoyed less frequent visits to their village dentist, they ate these weeds primarily for food. The purple nutsedge’s tubers store energy and carbohydrates, which early man needed to hunt wild game and fight enemies. Turns out, Cyperus Rotundus, (also known as coco grass, Java grass and nut grass) is a pretty amazing plant. It’s hearty enough to grow on every continent, thrives in poor soil, and is resistant to most chemical herbicides. The truth is, purple nutsedge has seemingly endless uses. The plant’s tuber may be bitter to the taste, but it’s packed with trace minerals, nutrients, and the essential amino acid lysine, an antiviral against the herpes. The Chinese steam the tubers, slice them lengthwise and dry them in the sun to make tea leaves that they claim helps resolve grief and resolve stomach pain from anger.
Cyperus Rotundus…the ubiquitous, unstoppable weed that may help prevent tooth decay (and maybe a few other ailments). Who knew?

24 Aug 2014

Ireland - THE GIRL AGAINST FLUORIDE

THE PEOPLE'S MOVEMENT TO END WATER FLUORIDATION
The Girl Against Fluoride
Aisling FitzGibbon aka ‘The Girl Against Fluoride’ is leading the people's movement to end water fluoridation. The Girl Against Fluoride is a public awareness campaign.Part of the campaign involves taking legal action against the Irish Government to stop them from adding fluoride to the drinking water supply. In the run up to the court case we are engaging in a nationwide public awareness campaign to inform as many people as possible about the adverse health effects of fluoride. Aisling is taking on this legal battle for the sole purpose of ensuring the right to clean, safe drinking water for the people of Ireland. There is no financial gain to be made on her part. Although Aisling is the one initiating the case, she really needs your help to make this happen.

The Girl Against Fluoride Creative Director

Mummy Martha.JPGMartha is a secondary school teacher who is also trained in Nutritional Therapy. Martha believes in the power of the imagination and how it can be used to create a positive, magical and vibrant world. Martha enjoys English and French literature and plans on writing more in the future. Martha wants health care to move towards a natural form of healing that addresses nutritional deficiencies, underlying toxicity and emotional blockages. Removing fluoride from Ireland's drinking water is crucial for healing and for maintaining health. Having witnessed her own daughter Aisling's recovery from depression, Martha realizes the power of natural healing and how fluoride free water is fundamental for mental health and overall health.
Homer - The Girl Against Fluoride Mascot
Homer.JPGHomer likes nothing better than being on the campaign trail travelling around Ireland in The Girl Against Fluoride mobile. Homer is a champion activist dog and is proud to stand up for both animal and human rights. Homer enjoys drinking fluoride free water and travels with his own filtered water when staying with relatives and friends. Homer is almost 17 years old and he attributes his longevity to drinking fluoride free water, a wholesome organic diet and the love of 'The Girl Against Fluoride' team. 


Shocking figures show our children have some of the worst teeth in England

Children in parts of Greater Manchester have among the worst teeth in England, shocking new figure show.
The rate of children in Manchester, Salford and other parts of the region having dental work including fillings and root canal surgery is among the highest in the country.
NHS data scrutinised by the MEN shows that children in Manchester were having a tooth filled every three minutes on average last year.
The news comes 12 months after the MEN revealed that almost half of five-year-olds in Salford and Oldham now have decayed, missing or filled teeth.
One senior dentist has told the MEN he is ‘heartbroken’ when he sees the state of some children’s teeth in Greater Manchester.
Dr Ben Atkins, who runs six dental surgeries in the region, said: “As a dentist, it destroys you every time you see tooth decay. It’s totally preventable.”
He has urged parents and grandparents to take more care of their children’s teeth by ensuring they brush them twice a day with fluoride toothpaste and give them milk and water instead of sugary drinks.
Figures released by Health and Social Care Information Centre show that children in Salford had the fifth highest rate of root canal treatments in 2013/14.
Manchester also had the tenth highest rate for children who have had permanent fillings and sealant repairs.
Bury had the third highest rate in the country of children who have had their teeth veneered. Children in Bury are also three times more likely and in Salford twice more likely to have had veneers compared with the national average.
The figures also show that eight out of ten children in Central Manchester and Salford have been seen by a dentist in the past two years - among the highest rates in England.
Separate figures last September showed that the proportion of five-year-olds with tooth decay is above the national average in all but one of the region’s ten districts - Stockport.
Public health chiefs say there is still much to do to reduce the inequalities in levels of dental decay.
Dr Atkins said: “Parents have total control over what their children eat and drink. It’s about educating people and getting the simple message out there to brush their children’s teeth twice a day with fluoride toothpaste.”

23 Aug 2014



Published on 22 Aug 2014
Do you brush your teeth? Drink water? Then today's show is for you. Dr. Paul Connett arrives from the Fluoride Action Network to tell all when it comes to the safety of mandatory fluoridation.

He's got some hard answers to swallow. And - Mrs. Clutterbuck down the street thinks it's a bad idea. - Oh - you'll just have to tune in to understand that one!

http://www.fluoridealert.org

http://boiltherfrogradio.com

Fluoridation review 'Dirty Science' - Fluoride Free NZ

Saturday, 23 August, 2014 - 07:17
Last week we had Dirty Politics this week we have Laundromat Science.

A "review" of fluoridation published yesterday (22nd August) was chaired by committed fluoridationists Professors Peter Gluckman and David Skegg.
Both of these men had already hung their hat on the fluoridation wagon.

It is obvious that this review was set up to allay the growing public concern and awareness that fluoride does cause harm rather than actually deal with science. This was PR not science, in other words, dirty science.
Last year Prof Gluckman issued an advisory stating that "the science was settled" and two weeks ago he said on Radio NZ that the Review would be looking at "what we know about the safety and efficacy of fluoride in water." He didn’t say they would be examining the research that shows that fluoride is harmful and perhaps not even effective.

Less than two years ago, Prof Skegg claimed that there was no new evidence to require a review of fluoridation, in spite of the two most prestigious international reviews in history (The York Review 2000 and the National Research Council 2006) saying there was a dire need for better scientific information.
The NZ "expert panel" included only people who were already known to be ardently in favour of fluoridation and not one single person who is known to be opposed, or even someone neutral. It was therefore already a foregone conclusion. Gregory Seymour who, as Head of the Otago Dental School, refused the Dental Students’ Association’s request to hear scientific evidence against fluoridation on campus by an international expert, and Murray Thomson is the Editor of the NZ Dental Journal and author of pro-fluoridation papers.

One surprise is that the review has gone so far as to claim that fluoridation works systemically (i.e. by swallowing) before teeth erupt. This belief was not only scientifically discredited 15 years ago by the US Public Health Service’s Centers for Disease Control, but has also been acknowledged as wrong in court in sworn affidavits by Health Ministry representatives and is contrary to what the top consultant to the MoH’s National fluoridation Information Service told the Hamilton City Council last year.

The Gluckman-Skegg review does not cite a single piece of research showing adverse health effects from fluoride, out of the dozens provided to the Royal Society in 2012, and the hundreds, if not thousands, in existence. The report even contradicts itself by correctly identifying that children under 15 years of age are exceeding the toxicity limits every day, and then concludes there are no health risks for any group.

This review should be viewed against the recent background of the Health Minister of Israel banning fluoridation last week and the admission by Dr Michael Beasley, the Deputy Director of the National Poisons Centre, that the jury is still out regarding fluoride’s safety, and yet another international study showing that fluoridation reduces IQ. This joins 47 other studies, ignored by the Gluckman-Skegg review, against the bogus

‘Dunedin IQ study" which does not identify individual fluoride exposure, but which is quoted in the summary as if it was one of the most important studies. The reality is that this "kangaroo review" is just a "finger in the dyke", trying to hold back the inevitable demise of this failed policy. The weight of scientific evidence is that fluoridation is not only ineffective; it poses major health risks, as known since the 1940s.

Fluoride Free New Zealand calls for an independently chaired open public discussion to uncover the truth about fluoridation.

http://fluoridefree.org.nz/dirty-politics-laundered-science/

22 Aug 2014



The dangers of fluoride and fluoridation

21 Aug 2014



PSA: "Because Fluoride"

Disclose.tv - 10 Facts About Fluoride

USA - Cavities, fluoride varnishes, and alternatives

Posted 1 hr ago
My son is 3yo and recently had his 3yr dental check up. The dentist said he has four small cavities and suggested we do 6 fluoride varnishes to stop the decay and reevaluate after that. She said they will decrease his chances of needing fills. He's never had dental issues before. I breastfed him until 26.5 months old, he eats a pretty healthy diet (I dont buy things with HFCS, he gets fruits and veggies with every meal, drinks mostly water), and I've been brushing his teeth once a day before bed with non-fluoride toothpaste. Our water is fluoridated and he drinks a lot of water so I didnt want to add to it by using fluoride toothpaste and I'm not 100% comfortable with the fluoride varnishes, but I dont want him to have bad teeth. I have upped our brushing to twice a day and have started to try and floss his teeth once a week, but what can I do for now to help his cavities not progress??
To top it off, our insurance would only allow 3 varnishes to go towards our deductible, the other 3 would be considered out of network, we still have to pay for all of them because were no where close to meeting our deductible, and I'm 37 weeks pregnant so we've got a lot of other medical bills to pay right now and in the near future. Im hoping to get some suggestions as to what I can do now to help his teeth while we sort out insurance, finances, researching the fluoride varnishes, and welcoming a new baby into the family. Ive heard brushing with baking soda and oil pulling can improve dental health, but will that help the cavities he already has? Should I add a fluoride mouthwash? He still swallows his toothpaste so im on the fence about adding fluoride toothpaste, but if it will help in the meantime I'll try to get him to spit it out. I'm just not sure what other options are out there. All the dentists say are fluoride fluoride fluoride.

Lots of fluoride but still problems.

20 Aug 2014



CDC Whistleblower